separation
- Thread starter Pepper12
- Start date
Unforgiven
Member
depend who is the caregiver. If kids is young and u able to arrange for someone to take care of kid, the court might award the care and control to u.
Actually separation does not work like this. If anyone of the parents wish to have the custody of the children, it very much depending on your financial status be it the father or the mother. If you are the mother and wants the custody of the child, the judge will give the children to you provided that you are working, financially & mentally sound. Than it shouldn't be any problem of all. The above custody I mentioned would be referring to the care & control only. & there's another type of custody which means making major decision for the child, planning overseas study, going to school etc. will still be 50-50% to both parents as judge always thinks that it's best for the kids. There's also possibility that you are able to fight solely 100% to control all the custody reasoning provided that you are not going to claim any maintenance from him for the kid.
Unforgiven
Member
i think u got it wrong , it's doesn't mean u are working and financially sound then the court will give u the care and control.
There are many men who are financially stable but they have no time for their children, the court will not give the care and control to them as they will not have time to take care of the children. If the wife is not working and the man have the money, he have to provide for the wife and the children. What the court look at is not who is richer but the welfare of the children.
this is what i read from from Divorce Proceedings, Divorce.com.sg
Custody can be joint or sole. Care and control of the children, ie the right to stay with and look after the children, will vest on one parent.There are various factors the Judge hearing the dispute on child custody issues invariably look for in determining who is the "better" parent. The evidence is presented in the form of affidavits (sworned documents) enclosing exhibits, and cross examination of the witnesses on its contents is usually not required. On occasions, a welfare report may be called, and the Judge can also interview the children directly. As the primary consideration is the paramount interest of the child and not the interest of the parent, even a person who is not the natural parent may be granted custody, care and control of the child, if it is in the child's best interest for such order.
There are many men who are financially stable but they have no time for their children, the court will not give the care and control to them as they will not have time to take care of the children. If the wife is not working and the man have the money, he have to provide for the wife and the children. What the court look at is not who is richer but the welfare of the children.
this is what i read from from Divorce Proceedings, Divorce.com.sg
Custody can be joint or sole. Care and control of the children, ie the right to stay with and look after the children, will vest on one parent.There are various factors the Judge hearing the dispute on child custody issues invariably look for in determining who is the "better" parent. The evidence is presented in the form of affidavits (sworned documents) enclosing exhibits, and cross examination of the witnesses on its contents is usually not required. On occasions, a welfare report may be called, and the Judge can also interview the children directly. As the primary consideration is the paramount interest of the child and not the interest of the parent, even a person who is not the natural parent may be granted custody, care and control of the child, if it is in the child's best interest for such order.
Unforgiven
Member
on custody
Since the landmark case of CX v CY [2005] 1 SLR 724, (High Court upon appeal from the the Family Court), the prevailing view is that a joint custody order would better serve the interest of the child than a sole custody order, unless a joint custody order will not work obviously. The said case has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. The High Court decision was affirmed and appeal dismissed.
The learned Judges of Appeal endorsed the concept of joint parenting, and went on to determine whether on the facts therein there were any exceptional circumstances to warrant a sole custody order. The learned Judges held there was none.
We note from the law report that the Counsel for the mother argued inter alia that the father had failed to pay for maintenance, was overseas and the parties had communication breakdown, and consequently a joint custody order is unworkable. It was also stated that the parties are living in different countries. There were also allegations that the husband's lifestyle and conduct had negative influence on the child. Some of the wife's allegations were denied by the husband. The Court dismissed the mother's appeal for sole custody.
It is clear from the case that the fact that the parties are living in two different countries does not matter. Even if the parties have a past history of acrimony due to unreasonable behaviour of the husband will not be the determining factor. The test appears to be what is in the interest of the child. It appears that for cases where the parties both care for the child and are capable of caring for the child, a joint custody order would be appropriate. It appears that much weight was put on the fact that the learned lower Court Judge had the opportunity of seeing both parties and had formed the view that both of them loved the child. That being the case, a joint custody order is appropriate. What remains to be seen is how subsequent cases on custody will be dealt with by the family Court Judges. What are exceptional circumstances that a sole custody order would be more appropriate ? Whether in due course, parties may have a joint care and control order or that access will trend towards liberal rather than the usual reasonable access.
Since the landmark case of CX v CY [2005] 1 SLR 724, (High Court upon appeal from the the Family Court), the prevailing view is that a joint custody order would better serve the interest of the child than a sole custody order, unless a joint custody order will not work obviously. The said case has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. The High Court decision was affirmed and appeal dismissed.
The learned Judges of Appeal endorsed the concept of joint parenting, and went on to determine whether on the facts therein there were any exceptional circumstances to warrant a sole custody order. The learned Judges held there was none.
We note from the law report that the Counsel for the mother argued inter alia that the father had failed to pay for maintenance, was overseas and the parties had communication breakdown, and consequently a joint custody order is unworkable. It was also stated that the parties are living in different countries. There were also allegations that the husband's lifestyle and conduct had negative influence on the child. Some of the wife's allegations were denied by the husband. The Court dismissed the mother's appeal for sole custody.
It is clear from the case that the fact that the parties are living in two different countries does not matter. Even if the parties have a past history of acrimony due to unreasonable behaviour of the husband will not be the determining factor. The test appears to be what is in the interest of the child. It appears that for cases where the parties both care for the child and are capable of caring for the child, a joint custody order would be appropriate. It appears that much weight was put on the fact that the learned lower Court Judge had the opportunity of seeing both parties and had formed the view that both of them loved the child. That being the case, a joint custody order is appropriate. What remains to be seen is how subsequent cases on custody will be dealt with by the family Court Judges. What are exceptional circumstances that a sole custody order would be more appropriate ? Whether in due course, parties may have a joint care and control order or that access will trend towards liberal rather than the usual reasonable access.